Fuel Economy

I have seen the same thing as well. Really weird because I still always push around 27 and up with my usual commute and typical daily driving. I'm around 25 now. Not sure what's up. My tire pressure is around 35 which is normal, but I usually do run around 38. Been meaning to fill them up but I don't think they'll make that much of a difference but we'll see.

Tyre pressures do make a significant difference, in fact the easiest way to get a 10% improvement in fuel economy is to increase pressures by as little as 4 to 6 psi.

I run mine routinely on 38 front 40 rears. On longer trips or towing my boat, they go up another 2psi at least.

It's all about rolling resistance. Higher pressure = less rolling resistance.
 
Tyre pressures do make a significant difference, in fact the easiest way to get a 10% improvement in fuel economy is to increase pressures by as little as 4 to 6 psi.

I run mine routinely on 38 front 40 rears. On longer trips or towing my boat, they go up another 2psi at least.

It's all about rolling resistance. Higher pressure = less rolling resistance.
I agree. I run mine at 39.5 psi on O.E. Toyo A23 225/55R19 99V tire which has 51 psi maximum inflation pressure. But here in the US we need to watch the maximum inflation pressure on tires as there're quite a few are still having older 44 psi maximum inflation pressure including O.E. Yokohama Geolandar G91A 225/65R17 100H tire on non-GT CX-5. I do notice the maximum inflation pressure on most tires sold in other countries has been rated at 51 psi or above for many years.
 
It's strange about the recommended tire pressures here in the US. Per the owners manual Mazda recommends 36psi (225/55R 19) for all four tires. For Mexico the exact same tires have a recommended inflation pressure of 38psi front 42psi rear.

What's up with that?
 
It's strange about the recommended tire pressures here in the US. Per the owners manual Mazda recommends 36psi (225/55R 19) for all four tires. For Mexico the exact same tires have a recommended inflation pressure of 38psi front 42psi rear.

What's up with that?
They're still 36/36 psi F/R for up to 3 persons, and 38/42 are for "full load" condition in Mexico.

Here is the tire pressure sticker from my 2001.5 VW Passat which lists different tire pressure recommendations for different conditions. This type of tire pressure recommendations is very typical on European vehicles. In theory tire pressure should be adjusted each time you have different load、speed、and temperature for safety and optimal performance. The range can be wide as you can see, as tires from other countries have higher maximum inflation pressure like I mentioned in my previous post. But that is too much hassle and almost impossible car owners would follow even just based on simplified VW's recommendation. Car manufactures use one-tire-pressure-fits-all recommendation for US customers, I believe, is they think Americans are not interested to adjust tire pressure too often according to different conditions like Moonlighter in Australia is doing, and there's no regulation to list different pressure recommendations for different conditions like in other regions.

pic-6981828435756281753-1600x1200.jpeg
 
Oh, Mazda...
With that in mind, our CX-9 all-wheel-drive test car is EPA-rated at 21/27/23 mpg city/highway/combined. The Real MPG figures, however, were lower across the board—the CX-9 scored 18.7 mpg in the city (approximately 11 percent lower than the EPA’s number), and Real MPG highway/combined figures came in at 25.8/21.3 mpg, about 4.4 and 7.4 percent below EPA results, respectively. As they say, your results may vary, but in our testing of 25 other light trucks and crossovers running extreme downsized turbocharged engines, the degree to which CX-9 underperforms its EPA ratings ranks it in the bottom third of this class.
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-9/2016/2016-mazda-cx-9-signature-awd-first-test-review/
 
Fuelly shows the CX-9 at 22.3 MPG, that's from 25 different vehicles and 330 tanks.
So, only a tad below EPA.
I don't think MT real MPG is really indicative of anything, it is definitely a drastically smaller sample size.

So Fuelly, which mixes AWD and FWD results, manages to not even match AWD mileage? Did I understand correct?
 
Car Manufacturers tyre pressure recommendations are biased towards pressures that will give the most comfortable ride.

That's why they recommend pressures lower than what is the optimum for economy, tyre life and handling.

It's not just Mazda, they all do it.

Mate who owns a tyre retailer always recommends we run at least 4-6psi greater than recommended by the manufacturer. Which means the tyres last longer and get better economy. Which isn't in his business's interests! So I have always trusted his expert advice.

My CX5 Akera came fitted with Toyo Proxes R36 225/55/R19 rated 99V. Max pressure 51psi. So even running 42-44 is still way under their safe max pressure.

So far they seem great tyres.

My previous (company) car a CX5 GT AWD had the same tyres, got nearly 50,000kms out of the factory set and the second set were still looking good at 90,000km when the car was handed back to the lease company. Always ran the same pressures I am now running on my new Akera.

And there is nothing wrong with running tyres at or near their max pressures. On our boat trailers we all run LT rated radial tyres and usually they have max pressures of 60-65psi. I always ran my previous boats trailer tyres at 50psi round town and 55 on the highway. Boats tows better and tyres run cooler. Under-inflated tyres are much much worse than over-inflated. Best way to destroy a tyre is to run it under inflated.

The only exception being if you are running a 4WD off-road or in the beach!

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
So Fuelly, which mixes AWD and FWD results, manages to not even match AWD mileage? Did I understand correct?

What is funny is that of the 330 fill ups, 150 are 25 MPG or higher. Something tells me the city mileage will be much worse than advertised, as it the case with all small turbo's.


I would also say the sample size is still small and too early. My CX-5 gas mileage got much better with time. The average MPG for 2014-2016 CX-5 is 26 MPG, which is pretty much as advertised and pretty exactly what I get.
 
What is funny is that of the 330 fill ups, 150 are 25 MPG or higher. Something tells me the city mileage will be much worse than advertised, as it the case with all small turbo's.


I would also say the sample size is still small and too early. My CX-5 gas mileage got much better with time. The average MPG for 2014-2016 CX-5 is 26 MPG, which is pretty much as advertised and pretty exactly what I get.

You're one of the lucky ones/people who don't drive very fast/go on interstate road trips.
 
For comparison, i recently got a 2nd car and here are my findings

CX-5 Rated 26 / 33 FWD
Camry 25 / 35 FWD sedan

Same driving and Camry gets 32.5; CX-5 (newish without any oil change yet) - 28.5 - Camry is driven harder and faster and CX-5 I have tried to be gentle.
Hoping Oil change will bump it up but if I see a 10% reduction in my 2nd car and a 15% EPA in CX-5 there is something very wrong.

I think best mpg i can get on my commute is 29.5 - 30 if I run on 38 psi or higher tires - being gentle on the peddle and letting the speed drop by 5 mph while approaching hills.
As much as i like my CX-5 I will say the EPA estimates are gamed by Mazda. Also it gulps fuel if you want to use that low end torque and get 0-40 fast.

EPA needs to modify their testing cycle to include harder accelerations and stops which many city drivers will do. Right now they have a fixed pattern which is gentle acceleration and may not be applicable for big cities.
 
For comparison, i recently got a 2nd car and here are my findings

CX-5 Rated 26 / 33 FWD
Camry 25 / 35 FWD sedan

Same driving and Camry gets 32.5; CX-5 (newish without any oil change yet) - 28.5 - Camry is driven harder and faster and CX-5 I have tried to be gentle.
Hoping Oil change will bump it up but if I see a 10% reduction in my 2nd car and a 15% EPA in CX-5 there is something very wrong.

I think best mpg i can get on my commute is 29.5 - 30 if I run on 38 psi or higher tires - being gentle on the peddle and letting the speed drop by 5 mph while approaching hills.
As much as i like my CX-5 I will say the EPA estimates are gamed by Mazda. Also it gulps fuel if you want to use that low end torque and get 0-40 fast.

EPA needs to modify their testing cycle to include harder accelerations and stops which many city drivers will do. Right now they have a fixed pattern which is gentle acceleration and may not be applicable for big cities.
ROFL! Try "gentle acceleration" in Sin City (or DFW, as you know)
 
I average 27.5, and get 31 on the highway with AWD (36 psi). Both beat the window sticker, so it can be done w/out driving like an 85 year old. I posted a lengthy story about it back in late Sept.

Performance only suffers in the winter with the winter blend and when I have to warm it up to get all the ice and snow off the windshield.
 
For comparison, i recently got a 2nd car and here are my findings

CX-5 Rated 26 / 33 FWD
Camry 25 / 35 FWD sedan

Same driving and Camry gets 32.5; CX-5 (newish without any oil change yet) - 28.5 - Camry is driven harder and faster and CX-5 I have tried to be gentle.
Hoping Oil change will bump it up but if I see a 10% reduction in my 2nd car and a 15% EPA in CX-5 there is something very wrong.

I think best mpg i can get on my commute is 29.5 - 30 if I run on 38 psi or higher tires - being gentle on the peddle and letting the speed drop by 5 mph while approaching hills.
As much as i like my CX-5 I will say the EPA estimates are gamed by Mazda. Also it gulps fuel if you want to use that low end torque and get 0-40 fast.

EPA needs to modify their testing cycle to include harder accelerations and stops which many city drivers will do. Right now they have a fixed pattern which is gentle acceleration and may not be applicable for big cities.
Although some people have been defending this to death, but I still believe that Mazda gamed the EPA estimates especially the highway rating on AWD CX-5! I also believe the varience on SkyActiv-G engine is bigger than we thought, hence certain people who luckily have a better made and more efficient engine can easily meet and exceed EPA ratings but others can't!

A friend of mine bought his first FWD CX-5 in 2014 under my recommendation, had no problem getting 30+ mpg for his daily 55-mile commute. But unfortunately that CX-5 got severely damaged by the hail storm, and he bought another 2016.5 FWD CX-5 earlier this year. The second FWD CX-5 can only get 28.5 mpg for the same commute!

I don't think MPG will get improved after the break-in period as ours actually dropped from 26.5 to 25.5 mpg.

Kaps, at least you didn't get blamed by "you don't know how to drive to get better fuel economy" or even other worse attacks when Unobtanium first raised this issue and I followed ⋯ ;)
 
Oh, Mazda...

With that in mind, our CX-9 all-wheel-drive test car is EPA-rated at 21/27/23 mpg city/highway/combined. The Real MPG figures, however, were lower across the boardthe CX-9 scored 18.7 mpg in the city (approximately 11 percent lower than the EPAs number), and Real MPG highway/combined figures came in at 25.8/21.3 mpg, about 4.4 and 7.4 percent below EPA results, respectively. As they say, your results may vary, but in our testing of 25 other light trucks and crossovers running extreme downsized turbocharged engines, the degree to which CX-9 underperforms its EPA ratings ranks it in the bottom third of this class.
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/cx-9/2016/2016-mazda-cx-9-signature-awd-first-test-review/
Actually the revised 2016 EPA ratings for CX-9 AWD have changed from 21/27/23 to 21/26/23 mpg city/highway/combined. For 2017 CX-9 AWD its EPA ratings are down-graded again to 20/26/23 mpg. We also know the EPA estimates for our 2016 CX-5 AWD has changed from 24/30/26 to 24/29/26. To me, this is an evendence that Mazda gamed the EPA estimates at beginning, and they have to drop the EPA ratings 1 mpg both in city and highway on CX-9 within 7 months!
 
Also, with the cold weather or if you are using your wipers, the system is going to be in AWD most of the time, sucking your MPGS even more...
 
There certainly are variances, that's for sure. An interesting test would be to have two folks who live moderately close by, but get vastly different MPGs to swap out their vehicles for a week or two and see how things fare.
 
There certainly are variances, that's for sure. An interesting test would be to have two folks who live moderately close by, but get vastly different MPGs to swap out their vehicles for a week or two and see how things fare.
Hasn't my friend done similar test like you described? Same driver, same commute, same 2.5L FWD CX-5. One tested for 2 years, and the other one for 9 months and mostly not with winter gas! He was very impressed with the 30+ mpg from his first CX-5 as the gas mileage was better than his previous Honda Accord 2.4L I4! This's one major reason why he bought the second CX-5 but now he's a little disappointed.

I think your AWD CX-5 definitely has more efficient engine and AWD system, hence you can easily to get 31 mpg on the highway. I'd have to try very hard, risking my life and driving below 70 mph at 75 zone for more than 4 hours, and got my best ever highway mpg at 30.5!
 
Hasn't my friend done similar test like you described? Same driver, same commute, same 2.5L FWD CX-5. One tested for 2 years, and the other one for 9 months and mostly not with winter gas! He was very impressed with the 30+ mpg from his first CX-5 as the gas mileage was better than his previous Honda Accord 2.4L I4! This's one major reason why he bought the second CX-5 but now he's a little disappointed.

I think your AWD CX-5 definitely has more efficient engine and AWD system, hence you can easily to get 31 mpg on the highway. I'd have to try very hard, risking my life and driving below 70 mph at 75 zone for more than 4 hours, and got my best ever highway mpg at 30.5!

I must have missed that, as I don't recall your friend's story. But I think you spend a little more time on here than I do, and you're obviously a bit more versed in automotive technology than I am.

I think both of our CX5s have January 2015 build dates... so the differences are a bit odd. I do know we require somewhat fancy gas up here in Maine... that might have something to do with it... other than that I'm at a loss to explain the differences.
 
Back